Byerly Journal Entries 3/30/13

Maud, 3/30/13:

Maud submitted a thoughtletter on her second paper and an annotated bibliography for her third paper at this week’s meeting. Her annotated bibliography was in the appropriate format and included a few relevant articles. She reported that she spent a lot of time looking through articles but that she could not find many which worked for her paper. I got the impression that she was only looking for articles which proved her argument that the number of people with AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa is decreasing, so we discussed the benefits of articles which either disagree with her argument or touch upon the same subject on a different scope or with a different goal in mind. She plans to look at one article every day from now on and she will add all relevant articles to her annotated bibliography as she finds them. The thoughtletter was written clearly and demonstrated her solid understanding of the two articles for paper two, but did not settle upon a definite argument. We discussed her thoughtletter briefly, identifying and editing a couple of unclear or rambling sentences. I think that sentence structure and clarity will continue to be an issue in her second paper, but we will continue to work on it. We spent most of the session planning for her second paper. She was unsure of how to approach this paper, as she agrees with both articles and is having trouble generating an original argument. I discussed some ways in which she can use implications of the article findings to give her thesis impact and originality. Her previous paper relied greatly upon current indisputable facts (but not in a negative way; it was just a different kind of paper) and I tried to encourage her to do a bit more hypothesizing with this paper. We came up with a few different possible topics and talked through each one, deciding what background information she would need, what her thesis would state, how she would use the two articles, and whether she would need to do additional research. I think that this exercise helped her consider the pros and cons of each approach and practice planning papers. We also used tree maps (which I learned about from the 4^th grader I babysit; her teacher requires a “planning tree map” with each writing assignment) to identify the different sub-categories discussed in the articles and to plan her possible organization. At the end of the meeting she was still unsure which argument she would choose, but I think that she had plenty of options and was prepared to make an informed decision. I reiterated that I did not want her to spend too long researching. Finally, I gave Maud the “writing leads to complexity” article and Wini Wood’s thoughtletter grading criteria because she had been unsure about thoughtletter format and I don’t think I had explained it very clearly (although her thoughtletters have all been formatted correctly).

Haley, 3/30/13:

Haley was supposed to submit a thoughtletter on her second paper and an annotated bibliography for her third paper at this week’s meeting, but she had trouble finding articles for both of these assignments. She told me that she had drafted about 10 different thoughtletters, all on different topics, but that, with each thoughtletter, she had discovered that the articles were too complicated or unrelated. She was apologetic and seemed completely unsure as to where to start. Therefore, we spent the majority of the session looking for articles for her second paper. I do not think that the search was wasted time, as we discussed the pros and cons of each possible topic and brainstormed organization, theses, counterarguments, etc. Her last paper had a very concrete and definitive argument and I think that I was able to demonstrate in this session the many different ways one can approach an article or argument. I am working with both students on accepting the complexities, inexactitudes, and uncertainties of arguments and problems. After about 35 minutes of searching for articles, I realized that she was never going to find an article which met all of her criteria. I think that anxiety about writing the paper could have also been playing a role in the length of the search process. I gave her a deadline; if she had not found two articles of her choosing by that time she would write about two articles we had found but rejected due to “unoriginality.” After then discussing the due date of the paper and the diminishing amount of writing time, she picked two of the articles. We used the remaining time discussing a possible thesis and general approach. She was concerned that one article tested mice while the other tested humans, but we discussed ways in which she can incorporate this information into her paper. She submitted her thoughtletter the day after the meeting, as I had requested, and it seems to be a good start for her paper. I sent her comments on the thoughtletter, most of which ask for clarity or suggest ways she can organize her paper. I think that these articles will be easier for her to write about than the article for paper one and I plan to use this paper assignment to discuss, among other things, summaries, comparisons, and concrete evidence. Finally, Haley plans to look at one article for paper three every day from now on and she will add all relevant articles to an annotated bibliography as she finds them. She plans to write about sociopaths, a topic we discovered while looking for articles for paper two. I am planning a paper swap for Haley and Maud. I was planning on having them edit each other’s papers online, but Haley stated that she would find a joint meeting very helpful, as she could learn from my comments about Maud’s paper as well. Scheduling a joint meeting may be difficult timing-wise, but I agreed that this would be helpful to both students and plan on doing it as long as Maud is on board.